In testing an upgrade to our Postgres database, we've discovered that one of our oldest versioned migration files is no longer valid SQL. This isn't an issue for the production database which (of course) has those migrations already in the schema_history_table, but standing up any new sandboxes is now made impossible by this broken V file.
What's the best way to bring an old V file into the modern world without forever orphaning our production database?
Of the top of my head I can think of a few possible options.
Configure postgres to enable previous version compatibility. I'm no expert at this, but I think there are some options here.
Just modify the historic migration scripts to they now work with the new version. This will mean that you can't stand up old versions any longer, but does this matter to you? I think that you'll need to run flyway repair after you do this, as Flyway will detect that the files have been tampered with.
Create a parallel set of scripts, one for each version, putting them in different folders. Then use the flyway.locations option to specify different folders depending on the version of the target.
Related
I just started working on a new project. We are building a new application from scratch. Team started with a brand new schema. I wanted to automate the database build process, so I started looking for the options. Flyway seems to be a good one. I have been playing around a bit and found some limitations of the tool. Perhaps, someone will be able to help.
We have the following directory structure for SQL files:
SQL
-- DDL
-- DML
-- PACKAGES
We are doing agile development, so file names are based on the sprint number. The file naming convention we are using is:
Sprint#_script#_userstory#_description
For example:
S1_01_US123_CreateNewTable.sql
S1_02_US123_AddConstraint.sql
Next sprint:
S2_01_US456_AddColumn.sql
And so on...
I setup the JDBC parameter and I am able to connect. I tested basic things like: clean, repair, info and migrate with couple of test scripts and that worked like a charm. I started to run into issues when I tried deploying all the scripts. Issues like:
- It didn't like single underscore.
- It didn't like the file names starting with S1_01_*, rest of the file name is different and they are in different folders.
I have the following questions:
Can I build using Flyway without having to rename the files?
How can I get it to deploy in this order:
DDLs
DMLs
Packages (everytime I deploy). And we have a separate header and body files, so deploy header first as well.
Can I change the structure of schema_version table?
Can I do selective clean? Like flag some of the objects to not to be dropped?
My main concern is running DDLs before everything else. If I can accomplish that, then I can start using Flyway and learn as I go.
Thanks in advance.
Harbinder
Can I build using Flyway without having to rename the files?
Maybe. Experiment with the flyway.sqlMigrationSeparator property. Try "_US" which will break after the script number. You'll also need to set flyway.sqlMigrationPrefix=S.
How can I get it to deploy in this order: DDLs, DMLs, Packages (everytime I deploy). And we have a separate header and body files, so deploy header first as well.
Specify multiple locations (separated with comma) and ensure the version numbering ordering makes sense as if these files were all in the same directory. If running from the command line, turn on debug with -X to see how flyway collects the migrations.
Additionally, if possible, you should consider renaming your packages as a Repeatable migration (default:R) so that you just need to change the contents of the file for flyway to pick it up.
Can I change the structure of schema_version table?
No. This is managed by flyway.
Can I do selective clean? Like flag some of the objects to not to be dropped?
No. In this situation it might be best to set flyway.cleanDisabled=true to stop accidental mistakes. There are callbacks before and after clean if you wish to do extra cleaning but I don't think you can restrict clean itself without delving into the code.
Good luck!
We are in process of upgrading Sitecore 6.6 to 7.2. Part of upgrade is to migrate all the media items from 6.6 to 7.2.
I tried creating a package but the package size is too large and times out on package installation.
I found link below using Powershell Console where it shows copy-item command:
http://blog.najmanowicz.com/2011/11/18/sample-scripts-for-sitecore-powershell-console
I attached the 6.6 to 7.2 version where I can access the 6.6 DB. However copy-item doesn't seem to support different databases.
Could someone please help how I can use SiteCore Powershell or similar to migrate media items from 6.6 to 7.2?
I had a similar issue with a (very large) media library with a similar migration. Packages seems to bomb out around the 2GB mark, instead serialize the items:
Delete everything from /Data/Serialization
Open the media library. Makes sure you have the Developer tab
showing (right click somewhere on the toolbar and enable it
otherwise)
Select your root media item then Serialize Tree
Wait...
Copy the serialized files from /Data/Serialization to your new
server
From the toolbar select Update or Revert Tree depending on your requirements
Profit.
You can find more info in the Sitecore Serialization Guide and this post by Brian Pedersen
You should be able to do this in Powershell too (from my understanding). You need to:
Add the database to your connectionString.config
Add that database to your web.config to <sitecore><databases><database>. You can copy the existing master node and rename the id attribute to match your conneciton name
Your legacy database should now be connected to Sitecore interface, you can check it is present in the database selector list from the right of the desktop
The powershell command now needs a "from" and "to" location. Assume your database is called "legacy_master", the following should work:
copy-item "master:\media library\*" "legacy_master:\media library\"
I've found Hedgehog TDS (and sometimes Razl) quite useful for doing this.
Create a new TDS project (don't version control it), and download all the items you need to your local machine. You can for example connect the "Debug" build to your source 6.6 instance, and a "Release" build to your target 7.2 instance. Then you can just synchronize the items to your target machine. It's sometimes good to synchronize one or a few branches at a time if you have long latency connections.
The good thing about this is that you're in total control of your content and can see what fields are updated etc. During an update process, it's sometimes useful to compare other parts of the db as well, just to ensure you don't miss any changes you've made to the platform.
Since I mentioned Razl as well: I've found Razl quite good if you have a whole branch that you know should be transferred from one db to another (such as the case you describe). TDS is a bit slower, but more universal - and you may have a TDS license already so it may not be worth an additional Razl license.
I've just added item transfer from one DB to another so you can Copy-item between databases starting with Sitecore PowerShell Extensions 3.0. Thanks for the great idea!
Just to add another option you can perform tasks like this using Revolver.
WARNING: Try this in a test environment first
if we assume that:
the context item is the media library item
the current database is master
the target database is called master72
then something like this should work:
cp -r -n master72/sitecore/
Before anyone marks this as a duplicate, none of the questions similar to this addressed any of my concerns or answered any of my questions.
I am currently developing all the POCOs and data contexts in a library project, and running migrations from within this project. The database I'm updating is the development database.
What do I do if I want to create the current schema to a fresh, new database? I figure that all I have to do is to change the connection string in web.config and run Update-Database, correct?
While the live/production database is up and running, I want to add new columns and new tables to the schema, and test it out in development. So I switch back the connection string to the development database's connection string, and run Update-Database.
Going back and forth between two databases seems like I'll get conflicts between _MigrationHistory tables and the auto-generated migration scripts.
Is it safe to manually delete the _MigrationHistory tables in both databases, and/or delete the migration files in /Migrations (so I'll run Add-Migration again)? How do we manage this?
What do I do if I want to create the current schema to a fresh, new database?
- Yes, to create fresh database to the current migration level you simply modify the connection string to point to a database that does not yet exist and run update-database. It will run all the migrations in order.
As far as migrating to the Production database, I am running the update-database command with the -script switch to acquire the raw sql and then applying that script to the production database manually. This is helpful if you need to keep a record of sql commands run against the database as well. Additionally, you can generate the script explicitly from a specific migration to another specific migration via some of the other update-database switches.
Alternatively, you can create an Idempotent script that works from any migration by using the–SourceMigration $InitialDatabase switch and optionally specify an end migration with –TargetMigration
If you delete the _MigrationHistory tables you will have issues where the generated script will be trying to add columns that already exist and such.
You may find the following link helpful:
Microsoft Entity Framework Migrations
I would suggest having a separate trunk in your source code repository - one pointing to production and one to development to avoid risks of switching between the two in visual studio.
Me also had the same problem, even when using one and the same database - due to some merges in the repository, and the mix of automatic/manual migrations. For some reason the EF was not taking into account the target database, and calculating what scripts need to me executed, based on what is already in the database.
To fix this, I go to the [__MigrationHistory] table on the target database and get the latest migration name. This will help EF to determinate the state of the DB, and will execute just the scripts needed.
then the following script is run:
update-database -script -sourcemigration {latest migration name}
This creates update script that is specific to the target database (the connection string should be correct, as discussed in the other comments)
you can also use -force parameter if needed
this way you can update any database to latest version, no mater in what version you found it, if it has MigrationHistory table.
Hope this helps
My production and my developmental database went out of synch and it gave me endless problems. I solved it using a tool from Red-Gate to match up the databases. After using the tool, the databases were exactly the same but my migration was not working and I started to get odd errors i.e. trying to add tables/ columns that already existed etc. I solved that. I just deleted the migration folder on the local, recreated it, added the initial migration, updated the database and then matched the data of this migration file (local) to the one on the host (delete all the data in the migration file on the host, and add the same data that is on the local into the host). A more detailed explanation is at:
migration synch developmental and production databases
I'm supporting some legacy PostgreSQL 8.3/4 databases, and migrating them onto some newer Windows Server 2008 hardware.
I've been informed that the NAMEDATALEN figure needs to be higher than the default.
As far as I understand, the NAMEDATALEN configuration does not exist in a config file, but rather needs to be set on compiling the application.
Having already installed PostgreSQL 9.0 on the new box, I'm wondering if it's possible to alter this configuration after the fact?
It's not possible to alter this option - it needs to be changed in source file src/include/pg_config_manual.h. Then Postgres needs to be recompiled, data directory initialized with initdb and data restored. Every security and bugfix minor release will then have to be patched and recompiled. This is bad thing to do.
This is much easier and sensible to patch an application source to use shorter table/function/etc names. The maximum is 63 characters, which is enough for insanely_stupid_and_totally_impractical_table_or_function_name0
Maybe your schema really does not need longer names, and this requirement it is just an artifact from long gone version of your client application. Check this - try to import a schema and functions to new database.
And this question should probably be migrated to serverfault.com.
I'm part of a development team that works on many CMS based projects, using systems like Joomla and Drupal.
In our development process, all of our code changes are managed inside of Git. At the end of a sprint, we create a DIFF that we can apply via patch to live site.
The problem is that most of the time, the changes include
Database Schema Changes
Database Data Changes
Source Code changes
Binary file changes (like images)
Git Diff handles Source Code changes beautifully. Binary files are only not included in the Diff except for reference to the fact that the files have changed.
Database Schema Changes and Database Data Changes are a mess.
I was wandering if anything like an unified patch system exists that could be used to deploy all of these changes in 1 patch.
So the question is, "Is there a system that can be used to deploy all of these changes in 1 shot?
Ideally, this system would allow to run dry-run like patch, but for all of the 4 data types.
Edit:
Thank you everyone for the feedback that you provided, it was a starting point for my research in this area.
Here is what I found so far:
It's difficult to deploy php based
applications using linux packaging
system because the changes to the
project happen iteratively rather
then as releases.
It would be possible to use dbconfig to deploy changes to a
project, but the problem is
generating mysql db diffs (schema
and data)
what really is missing for deployment of php based applications
is a deployment manager that would
be installed on the server and would
be the interface for deploying the
patches
I started a Google Wave on this topic and produced a lot of information as a result.
If anyone is interested in reading this wave, please let me know and I will add you.
For handling installation and upgrade of our application, we use the debian packaging system . ( .deb package )
Context :
We are making J2EE + Flex application. Shipping and administred throught a VPN.
So not so far from you.
Fresh install and upgrade for a version to another are made through puppet ( a system for automating system administration tasks : he install our .deb )
In the .deb we have
our compiled sourcecode
the schema of the database ( handled by [db-config][1] )
binary stuff
how to install throught apt all other application needed ( mysql, tomcat ... )
= All stuff for a fresh install
We also add the info to go from a version to another
the script for upgrading the database ( for each version )
new binary
new stuff to lauch at the machine start ( eg : some weeks ago we have add a activeMQ server )
=> Once the .deb is made correctly, we can install or upgrade seamless in one operation. ( it's made automatically, without any prompt ).
Theire is one .deb per realease, each .deb has a version number and a signature.
You can pick any of our .deb and make a fresh install or upgrade from the actual version to the version number he hold.
The .deb is in our continous integration system. ( we build a .deb each hour, like if we are about to realease a new version )
What are the benefit ?
Install / upgrade automaticcally, with confidence.
Rollback a version
run dry are natively supported
In your precise case
* Database Schema Changes
* Database Data Changes
* Source Code changes
* Binary file changes (like images)
Database => you will have to write migration script. One for each version. ( ex : 1.2-update.sql 1.3-update.sql )
Source code and binary => add them, say in witch version they have to be copied/use
Edit : i'm not sure about source code. We are doing that with compiled code...
Some links to start :
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Complete
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/index.fr.html#contents ( in french )
[1]: http://pwet.fr/man/linux/formats/dbconfig dbconfig
[1]: http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-pkg_basics.en.html debian
I don't think you'll find a fail-safe mechanism.
I recommend that, when possible, you take into account compatibility with the current published source when making schema/data changes.
This way you can make a v. simple tool that runs database scripts committed to a particular svn location (you don't want diff on database changes, as if you need further modifications you need different statements).
With the above done, you can have a simple command that runs the database changes, then the binary & source code changes.
For database there is also the option of schema&data comparisons tools, these could be used to compare environments & make sure there isn't anything unexpected missing in the change scripts - could also generate the change scripts, but as I said you really want to make sure it won't break current source.
You can create a tool to do the migrations painlessly -- something similar to Peoplesoft's Patch Upgrade Assistant.
It is basically a standalone executable that reads an "Upgrade Template" and carries out tasks. The upgrade template declaratively describes the upgrade tasks or "steps". The steps could be - copy (for backing up or moving the precompiled objects like classes and othar binaries), database (for altering schema elements), SQL Scripts (for loading or transforming current data). The steps will have some predicate logic capable - if it is this, do this, else skip it and go to next etc.
The template is usually an XML file. It also provides for manual steps with instructions for manual actions. Each step also specifies if it is recoverable or not. It would also validate if the step has succeeded or not.
It may be possible to have a Open Source project around this requirement which is quite common.
You need to save git commit objects in local file and then import them into other repo/branch.